A lot of the arguments about guns are on the fact that guns kill. I’m here to tell you GUNS don’t kill, PEOPLE DO! Guns are simply a tool like any other tool, a hammer, a screwdriver, an ice pick. These tools are necessary and useful and have been used to murder people by other people. And yet they are not on trial for killing people. The things themselves did NOT do the killing. Always it comes down to what PEOPLE will do.

What people don’t seem to take into consideration is the cowards that use guns to kill en mass. Take the shootings at schools for example. These shooters KNEW the likelihood of other guns being present was next to zero and so THEY WERE SAFE TO USE THEIR WEAPONS THERE. It had nothing to do with the weapons, but with the state of mind of the killers. Trust me, had the possibility existed that there would be lots of other guns there, they would NOT have chosen that spot to start shooting. These people are cowards and worse. They pray on the terror of their victims and our fears as a society. But we make guilty the wrong thing. It is NOT the gun, it is the person, who is responsible for these deeds.

I know that we all want to feel safe, in our homes, on our way to work, even at work. However, it is not someone else’s responsibility to keep us that way, it is ours. Being aware of our surroundings at all times, staying alert and focused on the moment are all part of being prepared to defend yourself.

It is time to grow up as a society and stop blaming everything and everyone else for US not being prepared. Stop pointing fingers. Look to your own back yard and see if it is in order before pointing fingers and telling someone else to fix things.

For example, I was terrified of computers when they first came out. Working as a waitress I didn’t figure I’d ever have to deal with them. However, our cash registers became more and more like computers. So, I decided to face my fears and go to school and learn about them. Not only did I find them fascinating, but I found I had a real aptitude for them. Had I let my fear continue to rule me, I’d never have discovered my love for computers. I think facing our fears is important.

For more cases and discussion on the limits of government responsibility to protect citizens see the court decision discussed in “Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals” by Peter Kasler and the book Dial 911 and Die by Richard W. Stevens. In summary, governments have no obligation to protect you and no recovery of damages is possible when governments fail to protect you. Most importantly, if you lose your life, no amount of damages could make that up to you.

And by the way, these laws that Congress and the president are passing, They aren’t legal when they affect the Constitution. In order for them to BE LEGAL, the entire population has to vote on them. So, Gov. Bush, and like George Carlin says this is the only office you legally were voted into, what you are trying to do to this country is ILLEGAL and you are not going to get away with it. Pass all the bills and signings you want to, but know this, the Constitution and our Founding Fathers knew a tyrant like you was bound to come along. They protected us from you long ago. We’ll get you yet even if those cowards in Washington don’t do a damn thing as they are so famous for doing now.

So, We the People put you on notice Gov. Bush, you cannot give away our borders unless WE the PEOPLE agree to it and vote on it! You cannot make us part of the North American Union, UNLESS WE THE PEOPLE vote and agree to it! You CANNOT give us the Amero, Unless WE the PEOPLE say YES in a VOTE! You have No power Mr. Bush. Know this Congress, you either work FOR We the PEOPLE or you will be replaced. Your bills that work against the PEOPLE are not legal unless WE the PEOPLE vote on them and agree to be ruled by them. You cannot do this on your own and without regulation of WE the PEOPLE!

Read the the-constitution.doc and the the-bill-of-rights.doc! These are the weapons of WE the PEOPLE. If you are informed, understand what is going on, then what is happening cannot continue, nor is it legal. Bush should have been Impeached by now. Congress isn’t doing their jobs, and Pelosi seems to be part of the problem instead of the solution. One has to wonder what she is getting for her stonewalling of the matter of Impeachment of Bush and Cheney………..

Feb. 23, 2006:
Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor says the Conservative government is open to restarting talks on missile defence with the U.S.

In the first of several planned tests in 2006, an 11-metre-long missile is launched from Alaska’s Kodiak Island. The missile travelled about 4,000 kilometres toward the California-Mexico border before splashing down.

Feb. 18, 2006:
In an interview with CBC Radio’s The House, Philip Coyle, who was a military adviser to U.S. presidents Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, says Canada should stay out of missile defence because its cost is climbing and its reliability is questionable.

January 2006:
During the federal election, the Liberal party’s platform includes a promise to negotiate a global deal that would ban weapons in space. The Conservative party’s plan supports the U.S. missile defence shield.

June 17, 2005:
Executives from defence contractor Raytheon Co. say they prefer Labrador as the site for an X Band radar installation, the technology that would be the eyes of a missile shield.

March 5, 2005:
U.S. President George W. Bush calls Prime Minister Paul Martin to discuss Canada’s decision not to take part in the Americans’ anti-ballistic missile defence program. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew says the call sends a message that both countries should “move on.”

March 1, 2005:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice postpones her visit to Ottawa amid reports of U.S. displeasure with Canada’s decision not to back the missile shield program. The trip was originally planned for April, and no new date has been put forward. The U.S. State Department officially denies the link between the decision to defer the trip and Canada’s decision to opt out of the missile shield program.

Feb. 24, 2005:
Foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew tells the House of Commons that Canada will not participate in the U.S. missile defence program. Later, Prime Minister Martin tells reporters that Canada will continue to work with the U.S. for the common defence of North America, but efforts won’t be concentrated on missile defence.

Feb. 22, 2005:
Frank McKenna, poised to become Canada’s next ambassador to the U.S., says Canada is already taking part in the U.S. missile defence program because of its agreement with Norad in August 2004. Later in the day, a senior government official says Ottawa will announce that it will not participate in missile defence.

Dec. 4, 2004:
The Quebec wing of the Liberal party adopts a resolution calling for the federal government to abstain from participating in the BMD plan or any initiative that would lead to the weaponization of space.

Dec. 1, 2004:
In the keynote speech of his visit, Bush again mentions missile defence, saying he hoped Canada and the U.S would move forward together on the issue. Later at a news conference, Prime Minister Martin insists whatever decision his government made would be in Canada’s best interests. He again insists that he’s against the weaponization of space.

Nov. 30, 2004:
U.S. President George W. Bush raises the issue of Canada’s participation in missile defence in his first official visit to Canada. Before the trip, officials said missile defence would not be on the agenda.

Oct. 18, 2004:
The Liberal government agrees to a throne speech amendment that would – among other things – allow for a House of Commons vote on whether Canada should join the U.S. missile defence system. The final decision will still rest with the cabinet.

Aug. 6, 2004:
Canada signs an amendment that will allow Norad to share information it gathers with people running the U.S. missile defence program. Defence Minister Bill Graham says the Norad amendment is not a step toward Canada joining U.S. missile defence.

July 22, 2004:
The MDA installs the first ground-based interceptor missile at Fort Greely, Alaska.

July 3, 2004:
The Missile Defence Agency dedicates the ballistic missile defence site at Fort Greely, Alaska. The Alaskan ceremonies mark completion of construction, including installation of six interceptor silos for the initial GMD capability.

June 23, 2004:
During the election campaign, Prime Minister Martin promises he will not sign any agreement that allows for weapons to be deployed in space.

Dec. 4, 2003:
Australia joins the U.S. missile defence program.

Nov. 15, 2003:
Paul Martin elected Liberal leader; says Canada must be part of the discussions on U.S. missile defence plans.

May 16, 2003:
Canada expresses interest in starting negotiations with the United States about whether to participate in the missile defence program.

May 14, 2003:
Denmark and Greenland sign an agreement-in-principle to expand Greenland’s Thule Base as a link to U.S. missile defence.

Dec. 13, 2001:
President George W. Bush announces the U.S. will withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in six months. Earlier in the year, Bush announced plans to go ahead with development of a national missile defence system.

Gun control, I believe, is what the Government would love to use to take away our weapons. An armed citizenry is much harder to control than an unarmed one. Look at China’s history, or even Japans. I thank God for our founding Fathers and their wise foresight in creating the Constitution and the Bill or Rights. And while evil men attempt to take us from Democracy into a dictator ship, while Congress capitulates or does nothing, We the PEOPLE still have our power, if we are wise and aware.

I will leave you with this piece, hoping that you will take seriously your need to be prepared, educated and aware:

March 18 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they will declare that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to possess firearms, questioning the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.

The court today considered whether the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” covers all people or only those affiliated with a National Guard or other state-run militia. The Supreme Court has never squarely addressed that question.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the court’s swing vote, said the Second Amendment confers “a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.”

The District of Columbia’s 32-year-old gun ban, by some measures the strictest in the nation, bars most residents from owning handguns and requires that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six city residents challenged the law, saying they want firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

The dispute is probably the most closely watched case of the Supreme Court’s current term. People began lining up outside the court two days ago to secure one of fewer than 100 seats available to the general public. The argument session went 20 minutes beyond the hour and 15 minutes the court had allotted.

A ruling adopting the individual-rights approach would mark a long-desired victory for opponents of gun control. At the same time, the practical impact will turn on how much leeway the court gives government officials to regulate firearms, and the justices today gave mixed signals on that issue.

Too Far?

Several members of the court suggested the ban went too far in restricting gun rights. “What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia also questioned whether a rifle or shotgun could effectively protect a person at home, given the city’s requirement that the weapon be kept unloaded or under trigger lock.

“Even if you have a gun, under this code provision it doesn’t seem as if you could use it for the defense of your home,” Alito said.

Other justices were more supportive of the D.C. law. Justice Stephen Breyer equated it to a law enacted in 18th century Massachusetts requiring that gunpowder be kept upstairs to reduce the risk of fire.

“We give in both instances, then and now, leeway to the cities and states to work out what’s reasonable in light of their problems,” Breyer said.

Kennedy Position

Kennedy didn’t make clear how much deference he would accord lawmakers. He asked several times whether the Second Amendment, when enacted, protected people who lived in remote areas and needed protection against wild animals and hostile Indian tribes.

Kennedy also sought assurances from Alan Gura, the lawyer arguing against the Washington law, that governments could still restrict machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

Gura said they could, though he was less definitive when Justice John Paul Stevens followed up by asking whether a university could ban guns in student dormitories.

“It’s something that might be doable, but, again, that’s something that’s so far from what we have here,” Gura said.

The district’s lawyer, Walter Dellinger, pointed to what he said was the “eminent reasonableness and careful balance of this law.” He said the measure could be interpreted to give homeowners broad power to unlock their weapons when needed for self-defense.

Middle Ground

The Bush administration, represented by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, is taking a middle ground in the case. Clement contended today that, while the Second Amendment protects individual rights, it allows “reasonable regulations” and doesn’t necessarily require the D.C. law be overturned.

Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the amendment reads in its entirety: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

A U.S. appeals court struck down Washington’s ban and said the Second Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable restrictions on their right to own firearms. The decision marked the first time a federal appeals court had ever voided a law on Second Amendment grounds.

The Supreme Court hasn’t considered the Second Amendment since 1939, when it issued a ruling that both sides now claim as support for their position.

Thomas and Scalia

Before today’s argument, only two of the nine justices had so much as hinted how they might read the Second Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas intimated in a 1997 case that he was receptive to the individual-rights approach, as did Scalia in a book the same year.

Kennedy, Roberts and Alito joined those two today in suggesting they will vote to enshrine an individual right. Roberts made his views clear with the very first question of the session, directed at Dellinger.

“If it is limited to state militias, why would they say `the right of the people’?” Roberts asked. “In other words, why wouldn’t they say `state militias have the right to keep arms’?”

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: March 18, 2008 13:40 EDT

There is hope, there is always hope, even on the darkest night. We the PEOPLE need to stand strong and face those who would dismantle our Constitution. We need to demand they be held accountable, jailed if necessary, and put away so they can do no more harm. It needs to be made clear that we will NOT put up with those who seek to overthrow us by means of slight of hand, lies or deceit! We will not go down Gov. Bush, not while there is life left in us!

Updates to this article are available on the menu bar at the top of this page, right hand side. Thank you.